Any
claim that our fighting forces are not reaching their maximum potential because
females are not included is absurd. The number of women who are the equal to
reasonably well-developed men in upper-body strength and who have the same
stamina and endurance is vanishingly small. Because the number of women who
will meet the military’s already debased physical-fitness standard will not
satisfy the feminists’ demand for representation, the fitness standard will
inevitably be lowered across the board or for women alone, as we have seen in
civilian uniformed forces.

Feminists
routinely deny Eros — except when it suits them to
exploit their sexual power. Only someone deliberately blind to human reality
could maintain that putting men and women in close quarters 24 hours a day will
not produce a proliferation of sex, thus introducing all the irrational
passions (and resulting favoritism) of physical attraction into an organization
that should be exclusively devoted to the mission of combat preparedness.
Reported “sexual assaults” will skyrocket, and of course it will only be the
men who are at fault. Any consensual behavior leading up to the “assault” —
getting in bed with your fellow grunt drunk and taking off your clothes, for
example — will be ignored, since in the realm of sexual responsibility, women
remain perpetual
victims, at the mercy of all-powerful men. Expect a windfall to the
gender-sensitivity-training industry, which will be called in both before and after
the entry of women into combat units to eradicate endemic male sexism.

In other words, making the military gender neutral raises
more problems than it solves. Thanks to a dumb policy the military wastes time
dealing with the fallout.

The
problem with this statement of the issue is that the military “glass ceiling”
is streaked with blood. If women are to be warriors — and thus earn the right
to command other warriors — they have to train like men, live like men, and be
able to survive the intense dangers of the modern battlefield as many men do.
If they don’t, they cannot gain the respect and admiration that commanders of
warriors must have to be effective. Should they be permitted to do that?

There
are two components to the question. First and foremost is whether the presence
of women will add to or detract from the readiness and capability of the unit
to perform its mission. The second is a moral question: Will having women serve
in harm’s way benefit our military and society at large?

I grant MacDonald the last word. At the end of her post she
raises the most important issue: why isn’t there gender equity in the National
Football League? Why aren't feminists militating to allow women to play football? Isn't it demeaning to their dignity as feminists to be relegated to the role of cheerleaders?

In MacDonald's words:

I am
not aware of any comparable crusade to create gender-integrated football teams.
At least America knows what’s really important.

2 comments:

What's the point? I thought the prevailing perception is that Homo sapiens are gender neutral. Perhaps that is only opportunistic and pertains to manipulating perception in order to establish exploitable democratic leverage.

Women are realizing their stereotype of men. In a population where women comprise a majority, there is a dearth of women.

Has there every been a population of people so confused or repulsed by reality?